Article

ISIS has Erased the Line between Foreign and Domestic Policy

Published

21st April 2016

ISIS has Erased the Line between Foreign and Domestic Policy: Time to Align Values and Interests

Not since the Vietnam War has a foreign-policy issue transformed Western domestic politics in the way the threat from Islamic State has. Neither the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, nor the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — however costly and corrosive of national purpose — so profoundly reset the playing field of politics.

Across the West, domestic policy debates — ranging from immigration to law enforcement to education — are now refracted through the lens of the new terrorism. Because of the Islamic State-related attacks in the United States and Europe, the line between foreign and domestic policy is gradually being erased.

Distinctions of left vs. right, or liberal vs. conservative now obscure rather than illuminate the policy decisions confronting governments. Today, an anti-immigrant policy can just as easily emerge from the political far left as from the far right.

The metastasizing crisis of confidence in mainstream politics may have been sparked by the Islamic State atrocities in Paris, Brussels, Istanbul and San Bernardino, California. But it is rooted in something deeper: a corrupting gulf between the professed values of democracy and civil rights in Western policies, and the reality of the ways national interests in stability and security are pursued, both at home and abroad.

Establishment politicians as diverse as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Francois Hollande are struggling to manage this peril. Can they hold a center of moderation and pluralism? Or will fringe forces of isolation and exclusion overwhelm a half century of mainstream Western policies?

The answer to this challenge is a new conditionality in both foreign and domestic policy. Abroad, this requires a new basis for alliances in which economic and military support is dependent on a common commitment to the values of modernity — and not just an interest in stability. At home, this means crafting a new compact between native and immigrant communities, with a promise of equality of citizenship going hand in hand with acceptance of pluralism and gender equality as the bedrock of free societies.

For the past half century, Western policy in the Middle East has been straining under the weight of its own contradictions: stability vs. democracy; oil dependency vs. wider economic development; military intervention vs. non-interference. If today there is a major Middle East government acting in ways other than deeply inimical to Western interests, as well as values, it is doing so by stealth. A parade of policies emanating from Riyadh, Tehran, Baghdad, Cairo, and Damascus are stoking sectarianism, inflaming radicalism, increasing the risk of regional armed conflict, destroying development and setting back human rights.

But merely acknowledging this — even as openly as President Barack Obama did in a recent Atlantic interview — without altering Western policy will do nothing to change this dynamic between the West and the Middle East.

Worse, it can only widen the popular distrust of government emanating from the gap between the West’s professed values of democracy and civil rights, and their relative absence from much of its foreign policy.

Now, the reality of U.S. energy independence and the threat of a new global scourge of jihadism present a unique opportunity to challenge the half-century-long bargain between Western and Middle Eastern regimes.

In the age of Islamic State, the reality for Western nations is that securing the stability of Middle East regimes matters less, and the West’s own national security matters more. Today, Western support for Middle East governments can be conditioned — in reality and not just rhetoric — on the degree to which their actions align with Western values and interests.

Critically, however, what will distinguish the solutions of centrist politicians like Clinton from the slogans of fringe leaders like GOP front-runner Donald Trump is a recognition that within each of these Middle Eastern countries are genuinely innovative forces of reform. Today, Western governments often encourage these forces of modernity with words, but still support the region’s reactionary governments with weapons and funds.

The new conditionality would turn this decades-long approach on its head. If Middle East regimes embrace their own vibrant agents of reform among the young and often women activists and leaders — rather than imprison, torture or delegitimize them — they can continue to rely on Western political, security and economic support. If not, they can look elsewhere for allies.

Aligning values and interests in foreign policy will, however, only address half the hypocrisy undermining traditional politics in the West today. In domestic policy, too, a dangerous gap has opened up between the values underlying Western modernity and their violation among certain marginalized immigrant communities.

Within European and U.S. societies, the rising tide of intolerance toward refugees and migrants betrays fundamental Western values. However, another equally dangerous betrayal of values is the indulgence of reactionary, occasionally extremist, practices of religious intolerance within many immigrant communities.

This policy has undermined domestic security in troubled suburbs from Paris to Brussels to Copenhagen and constitutes a fateful abdication of modernity’s values by centrist politicians, which has left their ostensible defense too often in the hands of bigots, reactionaries and xenophobic populists.

To confront their surging support, mainstream leaders have to recognize that standing up for pluralism has two aspects to it. If upholding liberal values means defending a Muslim woman’s right to wear a head scarf to work, it must also mean defending her right to education, equality and a free choice in her life decisions.

Instead, European government policies have often left the brave and embattled agents of modernity within immigrant communities caught in a vicious vise between two exclusionary forces of native and immigrant intolerance. Upholding the values of pluralism against the forces of exclusion within both communities is the surest path to securing the interest in development and human dignity.

Divorcing the values of modernity from the design of foreign and domestic policies in an age of migration and jihadist terror serves only to undermine economic stability and domestic security. Ultimately, aligning values with interests will get the West not just the right policies, but the right politics.
 

Overview

Confident decisions in a complex world

The Firm

Archipelago world

Macro Advisory Partners (MAP) was founded in 2013 on the vision that globalisation was shifting from a story of integration to one of fragmentation. Our Founder and CEO Nader Mousavizadeh first described this new global landscape as an ‘archipelago world’ – a new order characterised by fragmenting power, capital, technology and ideas.

Navigating the archipelago world requires a new compass. 
 

What we do

To look beyond the complexities of a fragmenting global landscape, we must widen our lens.

At MAP we empower our clients with a clear and comprehensive understanding of how the political, policy and economic drivers of this fragmenting world will impact the success of your business, now and in the future.
 
As a MAP client, you engage with a diverse global network of MAP partners and senior advisors – among them corporate leaders, strategists, diplomats, policy makers, and academics – who will help you interpret, plan for and pivot around the geopolitical and economic forces impacting your business. 
 
Whether it is US-China relations, supply chain resilience, tech regulation or the global energy transition, our strategic counsel provides solutions for every business and investor.
 
By drawing on our judgments of how macro factors shape your business we help you navigate the risks and opportunities ahead so you can make the kind of confident decisions for growth and investment that will determine your future success.  
 
 

Portfolio

  • Article
    June 2015

    Arming Ukraine Will Put the West in Danger

    A dangerous, possibly irreversible, dynamic of conflict is taking hold of Russian-Western relations. In every arena of the Ukraine crisis, escalation is the...
  • Article
    February 2015

    The Limits of Security

    The War Studies 2015 Annual Lecture, Kings College London John Sawers, Chairman, Macro Advisory Partners Dr Strangelove came out in 1964. US President Peter...
  • Article
    January 2015

    The Real Arab Demand

    Two years in the life of the Arab Awakening already feels like an exhausted century, with the pendulum swinging from exuberance to extreme fear. Reckonings...
  • Article
    September 2014

    To Build a Coalition Against Islamic State, US Must Try a Little Humility

    When President Barack Obama assumed the presidency of the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday, he summoned the full weight of U.S. power to a cause...
  • Article
    March 2014

    Russia’s Model Behaviour in the Ukraine

    Russia's Model Behavour in the Ukraine: the Fragmenting Geopolitics of the Future Surprise is the least forgivable sin of statecraft – and yet nothing has so...

Contact

London
180 Piccadilly
London W1J 9HF
Tel: +44 207 917 9947

New York
200 Park Avenue South
Suite 1117
New York, NY 10003
Tel: +1 212 602 8721

info@macroadvisorypartners.com